Validation of the WHOQOL-BREF quality of life questionnaire for general use in New Zealand: confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis

Abstract

The WHOQOL-BREF is valid for general use in New Zealand. In the future work, the WHOQOL-BREF domain scores should either be analyzed using non-parametric statistics or data should be fitted to the Rasch model to derive interval person estimates.

Exploring health-related quality of life determinants of New Zealand sole mothers

“…All items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Given New Zealand's diverse population, a scale with strong cross-cultural validity appeared advantageous (WHOQOL Group 1998), and the WHOQOL-BREF also possesses strong psychometric properties (Krägeloh et al 2013). In the present sample, Cronbach's alpha values for the four domains ranged from 0.74 to 0.85.…”

“…All subscales also had very good reliability values in the present sample, with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.84 to 0.92. The WHOQOL-BREF is a 26-item short form of the WHOQOL-100 quality of life instrument (WHOQOL Group 1998) and has been validated for use in general population samples in New Zealand (Krägeloh et al 2013). This self-report measure contains two global items about QOL and health and 24 items that belong to one of the following four domains: physical QOL (seven items); psychological QOL (six items); social relationships (three items); and environmental QOL (eight items).…”

“…As a measure of HRQOL, the brief version of the World Health Organisation Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument was used, which has recently been validated for use in New Zealand (Krägeloh et al 2013). …”

Quantitative assessment of quality of life in New Zealand prostate cancer survivors: the effect of androgen deprivation therapy

“…The WHOQOL-BREF has been validated for use in older adults [25] and for the New Zealand population [26].…”

“…A significant difference in one of the domains was then followed up by an additional analysis that included an ageand gender matched general population sample collected one year earlier [26]. This reference group was further divided into participants who self-identified as unwell and well, thus yielding a total of four groups to be compared (non-ADT, ADT, general population Well, and general population Unwell).…”